Quantum Approaches to Consciousness (2015)

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/

by lainon • 9 years ago

48 65 9 years ago

plato.stanford.edu

beloch2• 9 years ago

"The original motivation in the early 20th century for relating quantum theory to consciousness was essentially philosophical. It is fairly plausible that conscious free decisions (“free will”) are problematic in a perfectly deterministic world,[2] so quantum randomness might indeed open up novel possibilities for free will. (On the other hand, randomness is problematic for volition!)"

This is an aspect of this debate that utterly fascinates me. Many people reading this have probably heard the argument that free will does not exist because the human brain is just a molecular computer. If we could measure it's state perfectly at a given moment, have knowledge of future inputs, and possess adequate classical computational power, we could perfectly predict the future decisions made by your brain. Hence, you are a deterministic creature with no free will.

Quantum processes underlie all classical processes, not unlike how the physics of individual water molecules underlie the behaviour of a river. While individual molecules or even drops of water can do bizarre things, the course of a river is easy to predict. A coin toss or weather patterns may seem random, but they're classical systems that would be utterly predictable if we had a perfect measurement of their current state, knowledge of input from outside the system in question, and the computational resources to work out their future evolution. As with a river, the weather, or a coin toss, quantum weirdness should average out on the scale of a human brain, leaving only classical predictability behind.

Or does it?

One aspect of this quantum weirdness I'm referring to is truly random behaviour. Single quanta (e.g. photons or atoms) can be manipulated to produce measurements with truly random results that are, according to quantum theory and every experiment conducted to date, impossible to predict, even with perfect knowledge of the system, knowledge of all inputs, and infinite computational resources. Free will and being unpredictable are intrinsically linked. If your brain is just a classical machine behaving according to the laws of chemistry and physics, you are predictable and have no free will. If your brain amplifies the results of quantum outcomes to a macroscopic level, your brain may be inherently unpredictable and thus you may possess free will.

Fascinating stuff!

dghf• 9 years ago

Free will and being unpredictable are intrinsically linked. If your brain is just a classical machine behaving according to the laws of chemistry and physics, you are predictable and have no free will. If your brain amplifies the results of quantum outcomes to a macroscopic level, your brain may be inherently unpredictable and thus you may possess free will.

But how do you address the last part of the quote you lead with ("randomness is problematic for volition")? How is your will any more free if it depends on random physical processes rather than deterministic ones?

beloch2• 9 years ago

At some point in the future, I could have a quantum random number generator implanted in my skull and defer many of my decisions to its outcomes. I wouldn't be predictable, but would I have free will? Probably not.

How our brains use quantum processes really is the heart of the debate, but we don't even know if they use quantum processes in a way that isn't averaged out at the level of neurons or our entire brain. If our brains do make use of quantum processes in a way that manifests at a macroscopic scale, that alone doesn't guarantee that we have free will, but it does open up that possibility. If our brains are classical, chemical computers, that possibility doesn't even exist.

n4r9• 9 years ago

Agreed. I would be no more assured that I had free will if you convinced me that there's a truly random factor in my decision making.

It seems kind of paradoxical. Either the universe is completely deterministic, in which case my decisions are already set in stone; or there's a truly random element, in which case my decisions might be probabilistic. Neither of these feels like free will.

I'm inclined to think of free will as a concept that is only meaningful in the context of higher-order abstractions. It's a facet of our internal monologue and interactions with other people. Asking whether humans fundamentally have free will seems like asking whether computers fundamentally have cursors.

rothron• 9 years ago

The type of free will people often talk about is the type where if you rewind time to give you a second chance there is a potential for you to chose differently.

But whatever decision you want to make will ultimately be a function of your state of mind. How can you will something that isn't a result of your experiences? What else informs your will? The type of counter-causal free will people think they want probably doesn't exist.

You have free will, but it is determined. It's a result of physical processes. How we think may be difficult to computationally reduce, so it still might not be predictable. Counter-causal free will would force you to look outside the universe for causes. You get duality. Quantum randomness is not an escape for this.

mowenz• 9 years ago

This going pretty far out there in terms of imagination, but it seems possible something appearing random in our universe may not be random from another.

Yea it's crazy, but we already have theories from reputable physicists talking about stuff from other universes interacting with ours. I.E. of dark matter being the gravitational interaction of stuff from other dimensions.

So that's how it's theoretically possible randomness could sneak some free will into our universe. Far fetched, but I don't believe it's ruled out?

77pt772• 9 years ago

If we could measure it's state perfectly at a given moment, have knowledge of future inputs, and possess adequate classical computational power, we could perfectly predict the future decisions made by your brain

This is not true even in principle.

sullyj34• 9 years ago

Are you saying that with the assumption of a classical universe, or without?

sullyj34• 9 years ago

Supposing you decide to buy a small coffee, but if some tiny probabilistic quantum interaction in your brain had gone another way, you'd have bought a medium sized coffee instead. Do you seriously believe a scenario like this constitutes free will? In a philosophically interesting sense?

I just don't see how randomness gains you the kind of "ghost in the shell" decision making that people usually mean when they're talking about this stuff. It's still just physical interactions, it just happens that these ones are fundamentally unpredictable.

bcherny• 9 years ago

I'm currently on the Free Will chapter of Aaronson's Quantum Computing Since Democritus [0], where he treats this question directly in the context of computational complexity theory. Highly recommended to anyone interested in this stuff!

[0] https://smile.amazon.com/Quantum-Computing-since-Democritus-...

stared4• 9 years ago

Beware that in professional physics Rogers Penrose's view on QM and consciousness are not considered mainstream (to put it mildly). I had a great pleasure of talking him in person, and he falls into the Platonic trap. The best antidote is to talk with some actual neurobiologists, or read philosophy of mind (e.g. Daniel Dennett with Consciousness Explained).

At the same time I recommend reading "How the Hippies Saved Physics: Science, Counterculture, and the Quantum Revival" by David Kaiser (http://www.hippiessavedphysics.com/) - a general reading on the beginnings of quantum information (also, why quantum metaphysics is tempting but does not work); bear in mind it overvalues hippies - this field has also different, Soviet roots - vide Holevo’s theorem.

Or even better - start actually interacting with some quantum mechanics, rather than considering it mystical or esoteric. As Griffiths put it in his Introduction to Quantum Mechanics (Chapter 4.4.1, https://archive.org/details/IntroductionToQuantumMechanics_7...):

"To the layman, the philosopher, or the classical physicist, a statement of the form “this particle doesn’t have a well-defined position” [...] sounds vague, incompetent, or (worst of all) profound. It is none of these."

...an of course, play http://quantumgame.io/ :) (a recent submit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14432176)

zeotroph5• 9 years ago

Platonic trap.

i.e. is a believer in the mind & body dualism, an idea first put forth by Aristotle and Plato, and later famously championed by Descartes. Though the "quantum" variant is not as far out as the "soul" one. However neither are supported by science, but the knowledge gap regarding consciousness is still large enough that something might still hide in it.

Though Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle fell into many traps, this is probably the relevant one.

stared4• 9 years ago

Well, once you start believing that mathematical objects (or any other concepts) exist in some abstract sense (rather than are some kind of emergent property of our bodies, minds and social interactions) it's an easy path to get to ridiculous conclusions. (Cf. a very naturalistic vision of science itself by Ludwick Fleck.)

Sure, we don't understand consciousness yet (or maybe we never will). Still, it doesn't mean that it is good to fall into some plausible, and comforting, mental trap. Vide Feynman's "I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong".

rnikander2• 9 years ago

I tried to read Griffiths once, but I couldn't learn that way. I wish there were a path to learn quantum mechanics from a programmer's point of view, with "how to" knowledge rather than only the declarative language of mathematical equations. When I look at a differential equation like the wave function in the first pages of the Griffiths book, I don't see it. But when I look at the code to compute a derivative or integral, and can build up pieces and see it plotted on the screen, it starts to make sense. If anyone knows a good set of books to take this approach, please post.

stared4• 9 years ago

You mean something in this line? http://nbviewer.jupyter.org/github/jrjohansson/qutip-lecture...

For QM my strong suggestion is to start with 2-level states anyway (vide http://p.migdal.pl/2016/08/15/quantum-mechanics-for-high-sch...).

blurbleblurble4• 9 years ago

As it turns out, tools from quantum mechanics just so happen to be very useful in modeling stuff from the human realm, like decision making in surveys, word/concept associations, game theory, and more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_cognition

This is mildly controversial to people hung up on classical rationality or uninformed "skeptics", in spite of the fact that the research is pretty mainstream and doesn't make many philosophical assumptions about the 'reality' of quantum theory.

There has been a yearly conference called the Quantum Interaction conference where people have presented research using quantum theory outside of physics. I don't know what's up with the 2017 edition, but it's been held for quite a few years.

http://www.quantuminteraction.org/

stared4• 9 years ago

Well, big controversy is that it uses word "quantum" (to sound it sexy and attractive; any imply, even if implicitly, that mind has anything to do with QM) rather than "linear algebra".

And linear algebra is a very powerful framework for describing phenomena (including things related to cognition like word2vec, vide http://p.migdal.pl/2017/01/06/king-man-woman-queen-why.html). Also: it is the language of Deep Learning.

blurbleblurble4• 9 years ago

The research is more centered around a specific use of Kolmogorov's classical probability theory, which takes context into consideration. This realization has allowed "classical probability theory" to be used in a characteristically "quantum" way, by paying attention to higher dimensional probability distributions, and how "observation" tends to draw these probability distributions through lower dimensional subspaces. Some people doing this research also employ fancier probability theories, but to me it is profound that classical probability theory can be used in the same basic way.

So yeah, the research relies on linear algebra, sure, but specifically in the same way quantum theory relies on linear algebra: as a way of projecting probability distributions into different subspaces during measurement ("collapsing the wavefunction").

saalweachter2• 9 years ago

Ehhh.

The research doesn't sound crazy ab initio but calling it "mainstream" makes it sound like everyone is working on it. Skimming the Wikipedia article and its citations, it's a field that a half dozen researchers have been working in for less than 10 years. It's "mainstream" in that it's the sort of work that mainstream cognitive scientists do, but it's not a particularly dominant or well known methodology; it's just one of a hundred "what if we modeled decision making this way?" paradigms currently being pursued. Time will tell if it ends up being a useful explanation of broad swaths of cognition, or just an interesting footnote.

blurbleblurble4• 9 years ago

It's mainstream in the sense that they are using mainstream tools and are publishing dozens of books with mainstream publishers like Springer. It comes out of mainstream institutions.

I'm just saying it's not merely some wacky fringe shit that orthodox scientists like to marginalize.

scotty792• 9 years ago

For me the best way to think about consciousness is that it's a function of the brain, one of the organs of the body (that's pretty much a fact as far as we can test it).

If some statement seems profound when it refers to consciousness it's best to replace it with another function of another organ, for example digestion.

Suddenly "Quantum Approaches to Digestion" and "What happens to your digestion when you die?" sound way less profound.

wu-ikkyu• 9 years ago

the best way to think about consciousness is that it's a function of the brain, one of the organs of the body (that's pretty much a fact as far as we can test it).

Using consciousness to determine the nature of consciousness...how is that not fallacious? Like trying to see if fire burns things by burning fire with fire.

scotty792• 9 years ago

Using physics to investigate physics. Fallacy!

albertTJames3• 9 years ago

wow, working in the field, i must say this is the best written piece of bs I have ever encountered.

"The most discussed counterarguments against the validity of such strong reductionist approaches are qualia arguments, which emphasize the impossibility for materialist accounts to properly incorporate the quality of the subjective experience of a mental state, the “what it is like” (Nagel 1974) to be in that state"

If that is the most discussed counterargument you probably could have stopped there, it is not a counter argument at all. The apparent immediateness and reflexive nature of consciousness is in no way proof of its immaterial or "quantic" nature. Consciousness is a seemingly unitary process, a monade, an indivisible phenomena, but it is not. It is partial, biased, composed of continuous unconscious preprocessing steps, of attentional, memory retrieval, reflective post-processing that can be measured, deconstructed, and tempered with through experimentation. Their argument is that a qualia appears to be more than the sum of its parts. All evidences would actually favor the opposite, consciousness, and the information it holds is less than the sum of its part. I will not delve into the details, because I am depressed/frustrated by the fact HN comments disappear so fast in the abyss, and time is precious, but i will give an example.

Taking a simple psychophysical GO task, let's say click on a button every time you see a dog in a series of fast pace images appearing on the screen. While performing the task sometime a dog will appear and not produce a conscious recognition nor a motor response, but recording the brain using EEG, you would usually be able on those trial to detect error signals. Those signal appears for rare events of interest -here the dog. Although this error information is present at a subconscious level, and implied already a load of preprocessing steps (proportional of the delay between stimulus and the error signal), it did not reach full consciousness to produce the motor response. A machine then, trained to recognize such error signals on both correct trials and errors of omission will be able to detect the dog, when the human did not, using the signal of the human's brain. This is proof that consciousness is less than the sum of its part, it is using a final filtered hyper relevant representation of your inner and environmental reality. Not to talk about the monadic indivisible view of consciousness which is even more absurd: just look at heminegligence. Functions is lost, but the brain even forgets it had ever access to this function, it forgets it had a left side, that there is a side side in the room. This is not an isolated syndrome, focal neurological deficits are often associated with some degree of negligence of the loss functions. Wernicke's Aphasia for example produce a syndrome in which patient do not realize they are saying or hearing non-sense, what could be there qualia then ? If you believe your consciousness is more that the sum of its part, and monadic, just take an LSD trip and you will see what your brain has in store for you, what it filters out, what it can enhance or produce by itself - but also what is your consciousness then, is it not different above and beyond any information processing? But maybe then you will say LSD molecules are in resonance with a central string of the universe, it is the gateway to the quantic perception !

The brain has nothing to do with qualia, it works at the opposite of what a monade or a qualia is supposed to represent. The brain use distributed computation, distributed representation, multiple neurons for one concept, and each neurons participating in various concepts. Multiple brain regions for a function, and each brain region participating to a function. Conscious experience arise from these distributed networks interaction, make the mental experiment of killing one neuron one by one (leave the pons and medulla alone) and you will not see the qualia disappear abruptly, but you will see part of the experience, part of the function, of what constitute the notion of self first slightly disfunction then progressively disappear at different unpredictable pace with complex interactions between functions.

"As a consequence, it is inessential whether a detector or the human brain is ultimately referred to as the “observer”"

From a dualistic view arise false premises. The brain is not an observer, you are not observing the state of your brain, or collapsing any function. You are your brain, living in an illusion created by the interaction of systems inside your brain. It is all well packaged with your sense of self, which is an illusion, a function that can be altered: depersonalization, derealization.

And I wonder, in their view, which animal nervous networks have access to such quantic wonders? The worm ? the ant ? The squid ? The dog ? The chimp ? Or just us ?

You do not need anything but distributed computation to explain everything about the brain.

But I guess everybody needs to believe in something, at least he is not teaching creationism, and seems open to debate.

chimprich• 9 years ago

This is proof that consciousness is less than the sum of its part, it is using a final filtered hyper relevant representation of your inner and environmental reality.

I don't really see how this experiment "proves" that consciousness is not an "indivisible phenomenon", just that it relies on lower-level functions to exist. Some preprocessing clearly goes on in the brain before making it to "consciousness" level, but I don't think that the existence of non-conscious processes really show consciousness is divisible - any more than the processing of information in the eye does.

albertTJames3• 9 years ago

This example was to illustrate that consciousness is less than the sum of its parts.

The other examples were taken to illustrate the illusion of indivisibility.

omalleyt• 9 years ago

Philosophers latched onto the idea of QM in consciousness bc they thought the randomness aspect left room for free will. Of course it doesn't, any more than hooking up an axe over your head that will only drop if a certain atom decays means that you can now choose the time of your death. The point being we don't control the randomness, it evolves according to the laws of QM and therefore there is no role at all for "choice" to play. Also observe that a rock has the same level of access to the underlying randomness of QM and we don't say it has free will. Even if the human brain propagates the randomness upwards to larger systems, there is still no choice in how that is done. Theoretically, it is possible for a rock to exhibit crazy quantum behavior every once in awhile as well.

Of course, free will is an inconsistent notion predicated on the idea that there is a "you" separate from "your chemicals" that would do something different if only that dang physics would let it. But separate yourself from your chemicals and you don't get free will, you get literally nothing. People don't realize the implicit dualism in all of this free will stuff

zeotroph5• 9 years ago

"There is no free will!" is also used by some radical neurologists to suggest questionable changes to society, some seriously close to human rights abuses. So to counter that other areas of science (or gaps therein) are searched for what seems like free will, but as you said this won't change anything.

I think the concept of free will is needed, and not as a necessary lie to hold society together. I think of it as the number of paths open to you and the likelihood of every one. With every decision you will then randomly fall into one (aided by QM or not). So every person can and should be encouraged to cultivate their pathway network, which is what an open society based on discussions and science already does. Yes, all this is not "free will" in the strictest sense and should probably get a hipper name, but this will serve humanity and humanism more than the alternative of what in the end is just fatalism.

danbruc• 9 years ago

With every decision you will then randomly fall into one (aided by QM or not).

»Making a decision« is not a coherent concept. Your actions can either be a function of the current state of the universe or they can be independent of the current state of the universe, they can be either deterministic or random. Or some combination of the two.

»Making a decision«, at least that is the way I understand it, means choosing one of several different possible actions and this choice is neither random nor determined by the current state of the universe. As far as I can tell such a thing can not exist, random means not a function of the current state, a function of the current state means not random, there is no room for a third option.

And if you think carefully about it, you will notice that »making a decisions« really makes no sense despite the fact that we use the phrase all the time. Just think a bit about a thing that is neither a function of the current state nor random, it just makes no sense. If it existence, then we are currently missing something extremely fundamental about the world.

So every person can and should be encouraged to cultivate their pathway network, which is what an open society based on discussions and science already does.

We will probably do this but it is fundamentally an illusion without free will and as I just said I am pretty certain it is. Without free will things like encouraging people are meaningless, things just happen, whether deterministically or randomly. I am as stuck as everyone else with the belief that I can make decisions and go down one path or another, but it is an illusion.

We will probably keep talking as it were not for the foreseeable future, we will encourage people to do this or that, we will decide to do one thing instead of a different thing, we will be happy or disappointed or angry that someone decided to a specific thing. We will continue to ignore that all this is not in my or your or anyone's control. Not that we could change it, outside of our control, too.

albertTJames3• 9 years ago

"there is no free will" is used by all neuroscientists I have ever worked with, and I have been a neuroscientist for 10 years. Those are not radicals. Moreover, I have never heard of a scientist who would suggest human right abuses except maybe in Nazi germany or other totalitarian regime. Questionnable changes to society, that depends on your view of the world, if you are a climate change denier then a scientist would be perceived as trying to change society in a questionable way I suppose.

outlace• 9 years ago

Interestingly I wrote an essay about morality that essentially follows your logic of maximizing the number of paths a person has open to them, although I used different terminology.

https://medium.com/@Med_Student/on-morality-4a30d7e20dc8?sou...

Capt-RogerOver5• 9 years ago

Your views sound outdated. There is a "you" separate from "your chemicals". In the same way a character in a video game is in fact very separate from the transistors that power the computer that the game runs on. They live in different worlds, by different rules and both have very different implications for life.

There is a perfectly valid and functional world model that incorporates both the science and it's atoms and spirituality. Functional in a sense that people having this view can both apply their knowledge to the scientific domain (building new mechanical machines) and also to the spiritual domain, that is be truly happy and enlightened in the way the experience their own life. (Seeing yourself (factually incorrectly) as ONLY a chemical machine does not produce happiness, mission, love, etc. (nor good health for that matter, because health is affected by psychological wellbeing a lot) without a solid spiritual foundation.) Jordan Peterson has a very good video about this, something about reconciling science and religion.

The point is, "Free Will" is not a scientific concept, it's a concept from spirituality. And can very well fit with all of the science that is known to humanity today. Free will comes not from the randomness of quantum mechanics, but from implications of the chaos theory (which has basically killed determinism as a means of understanding the human life experience).

Fyorl• 9 years ago

On the contrary, I find that seeing myself as only a chemical machine is a very freeing experience that leads to greater happiness and contentment.

I find it strange that you can talk about concepts of 'you' being 'factually' correct or incorrect when there are very few established facts about consciousness or self - it all seems like mostly open philosophical debate from what I've seen.

WhitneyLand6• 9 years ago

I like the optimistic and practical approach of your response, and agree on the you separate from chemicals abstraction idea. However:

>"Free Will" is not a scientific concept, it's a concept from spirituality.

It is a scientific concept! I agree it's not always about science, and the concept has different implications depending on context. But it has it's place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Scientific_approache...

>can very well fit with all of the science that is known

Let's be clear here. There is no scientific consensus that free will exists, however you want to define it. Aliens landing in my backyard last night could also fit with all of the science that is known. So you may be technically correct but the claim is so weak as to be nearly meaningless.

>[good video by Jordan Peterson reconciling science and religion]

I may take a look if I can build up the courage to be disappointed, but it seems strange to try and reconcile the natural with the supernatural.

What's wrong with keeping them separate? Science is falsifiable and religion is not. One sometimes advances the knowledge of humanity and one sometimes allows us be happier humans.

jjaredsimpson2• 9 years ago

You can't really define Free Will as something different and then claim it exists. Free Will has an agreed upon definition.

Free Will is the capacity to have done differently given the same situation.

Free Will is completely absent in a enormous number of circumstances. Are you free to stop understanding English? Are you free to not be persuaded by a logical argument you comprehend? When presented with a donut while on a diet are you free to determine your level of will power to resist?

Free will conditioned on chaos theory is just jargon and ventures into "not even wrong" territory. If free will is sensitive to initial conditions then actors evolving in time are not free to choose their trajectories.

If your happiness is conditioned on incorrect beliefs about your essential nature and capacities then you should reconcile your beliefs with reality, not argue that the understanding of essential nature is incomplete or wrong.

tritium2• 9 years ago

The "randomness" of QM is merely an aspect of the discipline humans have designed, in order to digest the predictable parts of the systems examined.

We know, that due to differences of scale, and due to the fact that we must make predictions about systems in motion, as they exist, we must divorce ourselves from the concept of control.

But, the "randomness" is not assuredly an innate component of reality. It is simply how we deal with the circumstances as they have happened to confront us.

We have a tool that we use, in order to inspect reality. The information that the tool provides to us is practical and useful, but still represents only an estimate of unknowable facts.

opaque• 9 years ago

You seem to be expounding the idea of local realism a la Albert Einstein

"God does not play dice with the universe."

So you're in good company. However, it's more complicated than it appears and most physicists do not agree.

The randomness in QM is different and deeper than that which appears classically. For example, a coin flip isn't really random: if we can measure the coin's weight and the imparted momentum precisely enough we can predict the result. In QM this is fundamentally impossible, a measurement of a superposition state produces a random outcome. It's not merely and expression of our lack of knowledge of the underlying facts. Experimental violations of Bell's inequality demonstrate that there are no underlying facts in QM (called 'hidden variables'). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

Unless you accept one of:

A) There is no free will: we are all enacting a clockwork fate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism

B) Non-locality (faster than light interactions between distant systems)

It sound like you may already accept A, in which case fair enough!

WhitneyLand6• 9 years ago

I think you make an important point, which if I understand correctly is that it's easy for lay persons to overlook the interpretive nature of QM (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mec...). Do most people know that QM or new theories that describe nature more comprehensively may not even require randomness at all? I know this starts to stray off the mainstream path but the point is nothing is set in stone and in fact, we can already be certain there's more to the story.

I think pop science is so important when done well, not withstanding the problems and pitfalls that come with it. But it seems damn hard to get across some of these subtleties in an easy to understand but still meaningful way. Maybe when the next generation of science does a better job of unifying things it will be somehow easier to grok for all of us.

pygy_• 9 years ago

John Conway and Simon Kochen would like to have a word with you: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0604079

awptimus• 9 years ago

That QM is random to us is no more correct on its face than a dice roll being random. A dice roll follows rules of classical physics and given enough information about the state of the system we can accurately predict /exactly/ how the die will land. It ceases to be random as we increase knowledge.

That QM has a limit to the knowledge we can acquire within the confines of our observations does not indicate some philosophical "true randomness."

WhitneyLand6• 9 years ago

Would it be difficult to to use this start a religious cult? Something like:

1) Lead with content that for some people mixes science and spirituality: Quantum Approaches to Consciousness

2) Add context using sources here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism

3) Add self-serving message (give me your money, I am the messiah, etc)

2) Coup de grâce: Hold up domain from an institution of high reputation: stanford.edu

mcbruiser3• 9 years ago

the universe is deterministic. it might not seem like that because of the massive scale, but it is therefore free will is an illusion

Quantum Approaches to Consciousness (2015)

Related Stories